Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about a very important part of our trade agreements in our country right now. Many Canadians are concerned about the foreign investment protection agreements and trade agreements the government signs and is currently negotiating. One of the main areas of concern in these agreements relates to what are known as investor-state dispute mechanisms.

Canada has 21 FIPAs in force with countries as far afield as Russia and Argentina, Thailand and Romania. Many more are awaiting ratification or are currently being negotiated. The FIPA model has been enshrined in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The NDP believes in setting up a rules-based system that protects investment while preserving public policy flexibility, democratic decision-making and the rule of law. However, an ISDS, as it is typically written, does not conform to principles of the rule of law. People point out that these mechanisms provide no security of tenure for arbitrators. There is a lack of an effective appeal procedure. They are rife with conflicts of interest, and they are not necessary when the state parties have mature judiciaries where investors can bring their complaints and have those complaints adjusted according to the rule of law.

The China-Canada FIPA that is currently before the Canadian Conservative cabinet even allows for arbitration to happen in secret. That is unprecedented in Canadian treaties, and it is a major step backward.

Many people question investor states in general. Criticism comes from across the political spectrum. Australia has decided not to pursue investor-state provisions in trade and investment agreements, and so have India, South Korea and South Africa. Even those who are generally supportive of free trade agreements are worrying about the implications of investor-state provisions.

Lawrence Herman, counsel at Cassels, Brock & Blackwell and a senior fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute, someone with long experience in international trade and international business transactions, said this:

A repeated criticism is that FIPAs grant foreign investors greater rights than those available to local companies under domestic law. This may not have been a concern when Canada was a capital exporter. But now that things have changed, how do we feel about this?

Regarding NAFTA claims, he said:

It is a fact that many more claims have been filed against Canada than against either the United States or Mexico. Canada seems to have become the target of choice for U.S. investors, not Mexico, as had been expected.

Mr. Herman further pointed out a concern he has:

—that these arbitration decisions are rendered by ad hoc tribunals, appointed for a given dispute only. The members are drawn from a variety of places around the globe and have different backgrounds. Yet these impermanent tribunals are often deciding issues of social or economic policy of national importance [with no security of tenure].

He pointed out that businesses are concerned about sovereign risk in other countries, and following Australia's lead, that Australia has decided that businesses should make their own assessments about whether they want to invest in those places.

He said:

The problem is that Canada has proceeded down the FIPA path for years without a critical look at how these agreements really help us, both abroad and at home.

Civil society is weighing in. Recent transatlantic statements signed by dozens of European, Canadian and Quebec organizations strongly oppose the inclusion of an excessive investment protection chapter and IS dispute settlement process. They point out that such provisions weaken democracy, that in terms of the CETA agreement currently being negotiated, Europe and Canada both have legal systems that are more than capable of handling disputes between investors and governments, and that ISDS forces taxpayers to pay for the public health, environmental and other regulations of their governments to foreign corporations if they are sued. They say that there is an inherent bias in the system, and it is prone to corporate bias. There is also scant evidence that these mechanisms encourage inward or outward investment.

What I want to ask the government is why it is pursuing an investor-state provision in these agreements, when they subject Canadian taxpayers to potentially billions of dollars in lawsuits. Can it not construct a protection for investment that preserves a democratically elected government's ability to make policies for the economic, environmental and social development of the Canadian public? Why can we not do that?

Gerald KeddyConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the FIPA or any of the free trade agreements that prevents Canadians, the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities from making economic, social or environmental policy to suit themselves. I have responded to the member many times on this subject.

It is hard to combat rumours, innuendoes, half-truths and misleading statements. As a great example, the hon. member himself said something about folks who are generally supportive of free trade. What is that? What does that mean? That is some kind of great half-legalese speak craziness. No one really knows. Who are those people? We have heard time and time again from the NDP about claims against Canada by the United States or Mexico. How many claims have there been against Canada? We have not heard that number. Another number we have not heard is how many have been successful.

We are a trading nation that needs clear, solid, unequivocal rules to trade by. Part of that is negotiating free trade agreements around the world. Part of that will be the final stages of the CETA, the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union that the hon. member discussed. He discussed some of the challenges in a negotiation that has not yet been completed. However, what he does not say is that there is a 20% increase expected in Canadian trade that is expected to bring $12 billion to the Canadian economy. In order to do that, we need clear parameters on investment. We need surety for Canadian investors abroad and for foreign investors in Canada.

Let us take a look at the fearmongering and the record of the NDP. Let us talk about protection against discrimination in the marketplace and how to do that. We do that with foreign investment promotion and protection agreements. We do that with investor state provisions. That is how we do it. There is no guesswork. There is no tying it up in the courts for years and years at a time. There is an arbitration process, and the issue is settled.

The former NDP critic from Windsor West said he supports the efforts of big union bosses to stop any future trade negotiations with Korea, Japan and the European Union because apparently it affects some people who are NDP supporters. The former NDP trade critic from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour described the free trade agreements as “job-destroying”. Another former trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, said that free trade has “cost Canadians dearly”. That should be explained.

Let us have a reasonable, rational debate about this, and hopefully soon, but let us not speak in innuendo, rumours and half-truths.

The number of investment arbitration cases has surged in the last two decades from 38 cases filed in 1996 to 450 known investor state cases in 2011.

Ontario has just been sued by an international company over its decision to try to generate a local wind farm technology sector.

Quebec has just been sued over its decision to put a moratorium on fracking in its province.

Newfoundland was sued successfully by Mobil when it tried to have that company invest in R and D in that province.

Those are examples of Canadian taxpayers being on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. Those are facts and realities.

The hon. member can only babble and gab on with generalities and name-calling. He cannot seem to respond directly to the issue before us, which is this: why is the government putting investor state provisions in agreements that subject taxpayers to damages when the government should be simply making policy in the interests of Canadians? Will the member answer that direct question?

Mr. Speaker, the question has still not been answered. With 350 cases brought against Canada, how many have been successful?

Surely the member does not think the Mobil Oil case in Newfoundland is a proper example. The Newfoundland government had 4% of the shares in Mobil Oil, which prevented it from having a seat on the board. The Newfoundland government wanted 5%, which would have given it a seat on the board. I can understand the government of Newfoundland wanting that. However, one cannot change a written agreement in the country without both parties agreeing to it.

Therefore, arbitrary action on behalf of one party, whether for the good of that party or not, which is yet to be decided, has to be agreed to by both sides. In the case of Newfoundland, it was not agreed to. It went to court and Newfoundland got its seat, but it also lost its case.

Mr. Speaker, last November, I described Canada's housing situation to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Canada will have to report to the UN in April. That is not far off; time is running out. The government will have to explain why it is twiddling its thumbs when it made a clear commitment to the United Nations in terms of the right to housing.

Do I need to repeat that we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy? That is appalling.

Last week, the government voted against my bill, Bill C-400, which proposed a very effective strategy that is working in the other G8 countries. The Conservatives have flat out rejected solutions and tools that would help families who are in desperate need.

The UN states that safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right. Let us make that clear. Yet right now, as we speak, millions of families—at least 1.5 million—are having to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table. That is a problem in a country as rich as Canada. Yet the government stubbornly continues to believe that decent housing is a privilege.

Having access to safe and affordable housing is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right and families should not have to make a choice between their house or buying food for their children.

I hope that my colleagues heard what I said. I think I was clear. We have to stop burying our heads in the sand and face the facts. All of the experts agree that we need a national housing strategy.

As I said earlier, over 1.5 million families have core housing needs. What does that mean? People who live in dwellings that are too small, unsanitary or unaffordable have a core housing need. They have to choose between buying groceries to feed their families and paying rent. Forcing people to choose between eating and keeping a roof over their heads is cruel. Yet that is what the government is doing.

At least 150,000 people live on the street. That number could be as high as 300,000. Getting precise numbers is difficult and that in itself is unacceptable.

Will the government report to the UN? What does it intend to do to keep its promises to Canadians? Will Canada remain the laughingstock of the UN on this issue and many others that I will not name because I do not have enough time?

Rick DykstraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and has commented, on this side of the House, the government voted against Bill C-400, on February 27 of this year.

It is important to note that investments have been made to address housing and homelessness in our country, in every community across this land. In 2008, our government committed an additional $1.9 billion, over five years, for housing and homelessness programs. As a result of that commitment, the homelessness partnering strategy was renewed for an additional five years.

We have worked closely with the provinces and territories to deliver funding earmarked for housing, most recently through the investment in affordable housing framework agreement, which provides for a combined federal, provincial and territorial investment of $1.4 billion over three years. It is focused on reducing the number of Canadians in housing need.

This funding is over and above the $1.7 billion we provide annually in the form of ongoing subsidies to support over 605,000 households who are living in existing social housing. These subsidies help to ensure that lower income families and individuals living in these homes do not pay a disproportionate amount of their salary or income towards housing, getting at the very root of what the member speaks about in terms of the issue of making a decision as to whether it is home or it is feeding their children or families. We have made a determination that it should be housing and the ability to ensure healthy meals are there on a daily basis for those individuals and families.

In addition, let us not forget the $2 billion-plus in social housing investments that were included in the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan. As reported earlier, this funding supported an estimated 16,500 social housing projects across our country. I am sure that in Windsor, as in my community of St. Catharines, those investments were spent immediately and they assisted in delivering on repairs to the units in existence in cities like my home riding.

I know the minister came down a couple of times to make announcements. I know I had the ability to let the region know we are making investments in partnership with the region and with the provinces on social housing.

That was not a commitment the NDP was prepared to support at that time. That was not a commitment that it saw as a need in this country. The NDP made a determination that it was going to vote against it.

During a time when we were in recession, we included an investment in social housing as part of a stimulus program because we believe in the future and making sure we are able to deliver on behalf of these individuals and these families.

On this side of the House, we have made a commitment, and we are going to ensure we stay by that commitment to assist those in need of housing.

First of all, I have been asking questions about housing since I was first elected to this House, and every time, I am told that the government has invested in housing and that the NDP voted against it. If the NDP votes against a measure, it is because that measure is stupid and does meet the needs of our constituents. I would like to make that very clear.

Secondly, I worked in the community sector for years, on the ground. I saw what sort of conditions the people in my riding and other ridings were living in. I can assure this House that whatever this government is investing in housing and to fight homelessness is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not call investments in homelessness, investments in housing, investments in people across this country who are in need of assistance, whether it be at the municipal, provincial or federal level, “stupid”.

I think the member should stand in her place at the next opportunity and apologize for making that comment.

Homelessness across this country is something we need to assist in, make investments in, and not stand in the House of Commons, lose our temper, and determine that the individuals and families we are trying to help actually fall in the class of “stupid”. On this side of the House, we would never, ever make a comment like that.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take this opportunity to revisit the issue of devastating cuts to the health care of refugee claimants that I have raised during question period.

The government cuts to the interim federal health care program have resulted in confusion over who is covered and who is not.

What we do know is that some of Canada's most vulnerable people are going to suffer from serious health problems because of this government.

Now the government is creating different classes of refugees.

If the government had conducted consultations, it would have known that these cuts will actually lead to increased long-term costs as we provide emergency services to people for health issues that likely could have been prevented.

For over 56 years, Canada has provided health care to refugee claimants under the interim federal health program. The program covered the cost of basic health services for refugee claimants until they were eligible for provincial health care or were not accepted as refugees.

Despite the crucial role this program played, especially in covering the cost of basic medication, the Conservatives have once against shown that they are only too happy to abandon the most vulnerable people in Canada.

That is what happened on April 5, 2012, when without even consulting stakeholder groups, the Conservatives announced drastic cuts to the benefits available to refugee claimants. While they claim that they are still providing care to refugee claimants, the new program does not even include things like life-sustaining medication, which could lead to worse scenarios.

These cuts have created situations like one that I have had to work with in my constituency office. In this case a claimant was actually refused coverage for his dialysis treatment, which pushed him off the transplant list. Thankfully, his coverage was reinstated through the good work of my office, but he is on the line for the cost of treatment for the period he was cut off.

Is this how the Conservatives treat some of the most vulnerable populations in Canada?

However, that is not all. If the minister designates a claimant's country of origin as safe, then refugee claimants from that country receive no coverage at all, unless their health poses a risk to Canadians.

This is yet another example of arbitrary powers being placed in the hands of ministers, something that has become more and more common with the current government.

In fact, the cuts to refugee health care are so misguided that the government is facing several challenges by stakeholders and related groups. Only last week, a legal challenge was launched on behalf of the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. They argued these cuts violate fundamental human rights that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To ensure the health and well-being of our society's most vulnerable population, and in line with our country's principles of compassion and inclusiveness, we urge your further reconsideration to ensure that the Interim Federal Health Benefit continues to provide extended health coverage for all refugees. Just as hardships and health issues do not distinguish between sub-categories of refugees, neither should the program.

What is clear is that these cuts put doctors and health care professionals in a horrible position: their gut and their Hippocratic oath tell them to do the right thing, while government policies that are designed to try to attract votes order them to do something different, to the detriment of the patient.

Cutting health care funding for refugee claimants creates inequalities among an already vulnerable population. The policy ignores the benefits of preventive medicine, which could lead to mounting costs associated with treating dire medical emergencies.

Denying health care to refugee claimants represents a major shift in Canada's long history of respecting human rights and providing universal access to health care. Will the government finally show Canadians that it cares about the most vulnerable populations and restore funding to health care for all refugee claimants retroactively?

Rick DykstraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with almost everything the member has put forward in terms of her argument, she has done a reasonably decent job at least of doing some homework in coming to put forward her position today. I want to commend her on that.

To that end, the member made an important point that supports the government's position. She indicated there was an individual in her riding who had been told that treatment would not be available to him. Due to the work of her office and herself, I am sure, that individual actually ended up receiving treatment. What I am basically stating is that the program does work. A mistake was made with the individual in the member's riding and that care was returned.

What is important to understand is that the interim federal health program, which was put into place in 1957, more than 50 years ago, was meant to be a supplement to assist those who came to the country and did not have provincial health care when they arrived here. The interim federal health plan was able to help these permanent residents in the early seventies when we began to take refugees into our country. This was an opportunity to say we had a program that was available to them, so from a health care perspective at least on an interim basis, we could assist these individuals in the practical health care they needed.

We watched that program grow to the point where it was not just providing the basic health care benefits that most Canadians received who did not have or had not purchased additional coverage in terms of things like eyeglasses, dental work, prescribed medication. These were offerings and health care benefits that many of the Canadian public did not receive, but those who applied for refugee status did.

The changes we made in June 2012 were that those who were refugees would continue to receive those benefits. Those who were granted refugee status by the UN would receive supplemental benefits to assist them in their transition into permanent residency in Canada. However, we were not going to allow, and Canadians across the country have agreed with us, bogus refugee claimants who came to the country simply to take advantage of our system with the same types of benefits that those who truly deserved them should have.

To that end, the last three months have proven this to be true. In November, December and January we have seen a 70% reduction in bogus refugee claimants who were making claims in our country simply to stay here to take advantage of the Canadian system and our good-heartedness and our spirit of trying to assist.

We put this in place. We have seen a 70% reduction. That means two things. It means those who do not deserve the benefits are not getting them. Those refugees who truly deserve asylum in our country, those who are fleeing from persecution, are now in a much better position because there is an additional $2 billion in health care benefits over the next five years that will be available to those who have earned permanent residency. Canadian citizens will be able to undertake and receive some of those $2 billion in savings that we have achieved.

Mr. Speaker, when people access these benefits, it is because they need them. Imagine my constituent who was told that he could not have his dialysis anymore. Now he has a bill to pay to cover the period between his denied coverage to the point when his claim was finally reinstated. That is a shame.

The government continues to drive wedges and promote distrust. Nobody is arguing that there are no refugee claimants who do not have appropriate circumstances to support their claim. However, drastic changes like these are unguided at best.

What does the government have to say to the gentleman I represent who is out-of-pocket for dialysis for the period he lost his coverage? How did his situation change in any way beyond the outcome of an arbitrary decision and the funding gap that was unnecessary? He is still on the hook for expensive treatments, while his own case is being straightened out. This shows a true lack of concern for real refugee claimants and paints Canada in a negative way. Worse, there are many more cases like his across the country.

Why will the government not restore funding to health care for all refugee claimants and find other less dangerous ways to seek out illegitimate refugee claims?

Mr. Speaker, if there are illegitimate claims from bogus refugees in this country, it does us no good to continue to allow that to happen when individuals across this country are clamouring for health care and trying to find a way to address their health issues.

In fact, when we go across this country, there is no one who thinks that a gold-plated interim federal health program is somehow the answer to the question of delivering services to those refugees who are truly in need.

It is not right for the so-called asylum seekers to come here simply to take advantage of our Canadian way of life: our health care system, our social services system and our education system. To take out of the hands of those who truly deserve it by those who do not is not the answer. The answer to the question is that those who deserve it should get it; those who deserve it will.